Hi Mark,
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Document the rationale and usage of the new nospec*() helpers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I love your patch! Yet something to improve:
(borrowed from another Intel division)
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/speculation.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@
> +This document explains potential effects of speculation, and how undesirable
> +effects can be mitigated portably using common APIs.
> +
> +===========
> +Speculation
> +===========
> +
> +To improve performance and minimize average latencies, many contemporary CPUs
> +employ speculative execution techniques such as branch prediction, performing
> +work which may be discarded at a later stage.
> +
> +Typically speculative execution cannot be observed from architectural state,
> +such as the contents of registers. However, in some cases it is possible to
> +observe its impact on microarchitectural state, such as the presence or
> +absence of data in caches. Such state may form side-channels which can be
> +observed to extract secret information.
> +
> +For example, in the presence of branch prediction, it is possible for bounds
> +checks to be ignored by code which is speculatively executed. Consider the
> +following code:
> +
> + int load_array(int *array, unsigned int idx) {
"{" on next line?
> + if (idx >= MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS)
> + return 0;
> + else
> + return array[idx];
> + }
> +
> +Which, on arm64, may be compiled to an assembly sequence such as:
> +
> + CMP <idx>, #MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS
> + B.LT less
> + MOV <returnval>, #0
> + RET
> + less:
> + LDR <returnval>, [<array>, <idx>]
> + RET
> +
> +It is possible that a CPU mis-predicts the conditional branch, and
> +speculatively loads array[idx], even if idx >= MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS. This value
> +will subsequently be discarded, but the speculated load may affect
> +microarchitectural state which can be subsequently measured.
> +
> +More complex sequences involving multiple dependent memory accesses may result
> +in sensitive information being leaked. Consider the following code, building on
> +the prior example:
> +
> + int load_dependent_arrays(int *arr1, int *arr2, int idx) {
"{" on next line
> + int val1, val2,
> +
> + val1 = load_array(arr1, idx);
> + val2 = load_array(arr2, val1);
> +
> + return val2;
> + }
> +
> +Under speculation, the first call to load_array() may return the value of an
> +out-of-bounds address, while the second call will influence microarchitectural
> +state dependent on this value. This may provide an arbitrary read primitive.
> +
> +====================================
> +Mitigating speculation side-channels
> +====================================
> +
> +The kernel provides a generic API to ensure that bounds checks are respected
> +even under speculation. Architectures which are affected by speculation-based
> +side-channels are expected to implement these primitives.
> +
> +The following helpers found in <asm/barrier.h> can be used to prevent
> +information from being leaked via side-channels.
> +
> +* nospec_ptr(ptr, lo, hi)
> +
> + Returns a sanitized pointer that is bounded by the [lo, hi) interval. When
> + ptr < lo, or ptr >= hi, NULL is returned. Prevents an out-of-bounds pointer
> + being propagated to code which is speculatively executed.
> +
> + This is expected to be used by code which computes pointers to data
> + structures, where part of the address (such as an array index) may be
> + user-controlled.
> +
> + This can be used to protect the earlier load_array() example:
> +
> + int load_array(int *array, unsigned int idx)
> + {
> + int *elem;
> +
> + if ((elem = nospec_ptr(array + idx, array, array + MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS)))
elem = nospec_ptr(array + idx, array, array + MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS);
if (elem)
> + return *elem;
> + else
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + This can also be used in situations where multiple fields on a structure are
> + accessed:
> +
> + struct foo array[SIZE];
> + int a, b;
> +
> + void do_thing(int idx)
> + {
> + struct foo *elem;
> +
> + if ((elem = nospec_ptr(array + idx, array, array + SIZE)) {
elem = nospec_ptr(array + idx, array, array + SIZE;
if (elem) {
> + a = elem->field_a;
> + b = elem->field_b;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + It is imperative that the returned pointer is used. Pointers which are
> + generated separately are subject to a number of potential CPU and compiler
> + optimizations, and may still be used speculatively. For example, this means
> + that the following sequence is unsafe:
> +
> + struct foo array[SIZE];
> + int a, b;
> +
> + void do_thing(int idx)
> + {
> + if (nospec_ptr(array + idx, array, array + SIZE) != NULL) {
> + // unsafe as wrong pointer is used
> + a = array[idx].field_a;
> + b = array[idx].field_b;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + Similarly, it is unsafe to compare the returned pointer with other pointers,
> + as this may permit the compiler to substitute one pointer with another,
> + permitting speculation. For example, the following sequence is unsafe:
> +
> + struct foo array[SIZE];
> + int a, b;
> +
> + void do_thing(int idx)
> + {
> + struct foo *elem = nospec_ptr(array + idx, array, array + size);
> +
> + // unsafe due to pointer substitution
> + if (elem == &array[idx]) {
> + a = elem->field_a;
> + b = elem->field_b;
> + }
> + }
> +
> +* nospec_array_ptr(arr, idx, sz)
> +
> + Returns a sanitized pointer to arr[idx] only if idx falls in the [0, sz)
> + interval. When idx < 0 or idx > sz, NULL is returned. Prevents an
> + out-of-bounds pointer being propagated to code which is speculatively
> + executed.
> +
> + This is a convenience function which wraps nospec_ptr(), and has the same
> + caveats w.r.t. the use of the returned pointer.
> +
> + For example, this may be used as follows:
> +
> + int load_array(int *array, unsigned int idx)
> + {
> + int *elem;
> +
> + if ((elem = nospec_array_ptr(array, idx, MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS)))
elem = nospec_array_ptr(array, idx, MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS);
if (elem)
> + return *elem;
> + else
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
